[2026:RJ-JP:5223-DB] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR D.B. Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No. 2218/2012 Suresh Chand S/o Late Shri Shyam Lal, R/o Village Gari, Tehsil Thanagazi, District Alwar Rajasthan. ----Appellant Versus Smt. Sumitra Devi W/o Suresh Chand, D/o Shri Sukhram, R/o Village Mallubash, Tehsil Bansoor, District Alwar Rajasthan ----Respondent For Appellant(s) : Mr. Aditya Raj for Mr. Praveen Balwada For Respondent(s) : Mr. Surendra Kumar Lamba for Mr. Sunil Yadav HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUDESH BANSAL HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR UPMAN Judgment 04/02/2026 1. Instant appeal under Section 28 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, has been filed by and on behalf of husband, assailing the judgment dated 21.03.2012, passed by District & Sessions Judge, Alwar, whereby divorce petition No. 471/2006, filed by appellant- husband, was dismissed on merits. 2. Necessary and relevant facts in nutshell as culled out from record are that marriage between the parties was solemnized way back on 18.07.1986 and thereafter Rasm of Gauna was performed in March, 1991. The marriage was consummated and out of wedlock, a son was born to respondent-wife in the year 2000 (exact date of birth is not on record). Husband filed divorce petition under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act on 28.11.2006 stating inter alia that wife is mentally retarded and has left his matrimonial company from 13.03.2000. Divorce petition has been dismissed vide judgment impugned, hence, this appeal. [2026:RJ-JP:5223-DB] (2 of 3) [CMA-2218/2012] 3. Having heard learned counsel for both the parties and after going through the impugned judgment, we find that Family Court has recorded a fact finding that after Rasm of Gauna, in the month of March, 1991, wife stayed with husband for near about 9-10 years and out of their conjugal relationship, gave birth to a son in the year 2000. The Family Court observed that the ground taken by husband that wife is mentally retarded and not able to perform house-hold chores and daily routine work, has not been established neither by oral evidence nor any document of her sickness has been produced, more so, such an allegation appears to be absurd as no documentary proof in support of providing treatment to wife has been produced by him, rather Family Court found that after marriage, husband got government job and posting as Male Compounder, hence, thereafter, since wife was an illiterate and uneducated woman, he was not agreeable to continue conjugal relation with her and filed the divorce petition. Such fact findings by the Family Court are based on statements of wife (NAW-1), her brother-Kishan Lal (NAW-2) and two independent witnesses, namely, Bhoop Singh (NAW-3) and Sugan Singh (NAW-4). In the evidence of husband, no convincing evidence was produced to prove mental sickness of his wife and he has not disputed the factum of getting the job of Male Compounder after his marriage. 4. Further, the Family Court has noted that the averment of cruelty, as made by husband in the divorce petition, has not been established, since his evidence travels contrary to such averment and does not match with the statements of his other witnesses. It was noted by the Family Court that even husband disowned his [2026:RJ-JP:5223-DB] (3 of 3) [CMA-2218/2012] own son, whereas his father and uncle, who appeared as AW-2 and AW-3, deposed in their respective statements that a son was born to appellant-Suresh Chand out of his wedlock with Sumitra Devi. In addition, the Family Court has also noted that husband failed to prove that his wife left matrimonial home without any just and reasonable cause. In view of such fact findings, Family Court declined to grant the decree of divorce in favour of the husband. 5. Counsel for the appellant sought to argue that wife lodged an FIR No.4/2007, for offences under Sections 498-A, 406, 323, 504 IPC, narrating false allegations against the husband, but from record it is established that after investigation in FIR, charge- sheet for such offences was filed against husband. 6. Having gone through the evidences of parties on record, we do not find that the fact findings recorded by the Family Court in the judgment impugned, suffer from any vice of arbitrariness, manifest illegality or perversity warranting interference by the High Court in an appeal. Otherwise also, it is an established proposition of law, supported with Section 23(1)(a) of Hindu Marriage Act, that no one can take benefit of his own wrong or disability for purpose of relief. Hence, husband is disentitled for grant of decree of divorce as per this clause as well. 7. As a result, the impugned judgment does not warrant any interference and the appeal is hereby dismissed. 8. Record of the Family Court be sent back forthwith. (ANIL KUMAR UPMAN),J (SUDESH BANSAL),J pcg/21